HARI FABRICS Vs. KULANDAIVEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioners are arrayed as Accused Nos. 1 & 2 respectively, in S.T.C. No. 4573/2006, pending on the file of the Court of Judicial Magistrate, Tiruchengode and they along with three other Accused are prosecuted for the alleged commission of the offence under Section 138 read with 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A perusal of the impugned Complaint would disclose that Accused Nos. 3 to 5 had drawn the cheque in favour of the Petitioners/A-1 & A-2 and they in turn, endorsed the same in favour of the Respondent/Complainant and the said cheque on presentation got dishonoured for the reason "insufficient funds".

(2.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners/A-1 & A-2 would submit that the drawer of the cheque alone is liable for Criminal prosecution and not the endorsers and in support of his submission, placed reliance upon the decisions S. Badhusha Bibi v. Anandkumar Trading Co.,1991 2 MWN(Cri) 237 ; and Moshin Leathers and another v. Moulana and others,2010 1 MWN(Cri) 103.

(3.) Per contra, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/Complainant, would submit that since the endorsers also can be brought within the ambit of drawer, they are also equally liable and responsible for the dishonour and therefore, rightly prosecuted and would further submit that the points urged by the learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioners, can be thrashed out only during the course of trial and hence, prays for dismissal of the Petition.